Larry Catá Backer's comments on current issues in transnational law and policy. These essays focus on the constitution of regulatory communities (political, economic, and religious) as they manage their constituencies and the conflicts between them. The context is globalization. This is an academic field-free zone: expect to travel "without documents" through the sometimes strongly guarded boundaries of international relations, constitutional, international, comparative, and corporate law.

Saturday, December 31, 2016

In many ways, the year that is ending has proven to be quite
significant. Mostly, it served as a hard reminder that the carefully
crafted project of legalization and judicialization of the economic,
religious and cultural spheres that were meant to serve as the
foundations of a global order to make global war effectively impossible
has begun to fray. And with the fraying of the
legalization-judicialization project, politics and power have again
emerged as significant factors in the organization of law and governance
systems. It has seen the destabilization of the Middle East and its
consequential destabilization of Europe. It has seen the retreat of a
great power, a perpetually brooding political Colossus trapped in its
own doubts and pretensions, and the flexing of muscles of rising powers
through territorial expansionism and bullying of weaker partners. It has
seen the exercise of mass power in the United States and other places
that surprised elites that had long grown confident of their ability to
manage their people, whether under Marxist Leninist or democratic
principles. It has seen the unmasking of the militarization of the
internal security and police structures of even the most stable and
democratic states, the abandonment of law in battle against drugs and
the emergence of law as a technique of managing corruption. It has seen
the development of governance beyond the state and the determination of
states seeking to substitute itself for the market. It has seen states
us law, norms, markets and culture to drive efforts to perfect "model"
workers, individuals and citizens, which can then serve the state's
perfection of its markets, its centrally planned decision making
structures, or its structures of divine command on earth. The Jewish
people continued to provide fodder for all sorts of activity and were
used by left, right and themselves to their quite distinct ends, as
other religious institutions sought to maintain or expand their
institutional jurisdiction within legal, cultural, economic and social
structures in and beyond states. The rise of global communities has now
been challenged by states seeking to avoid the implications of normative
communities that cannot be confined to and managed by the state.

2016 is rich with these events that expose the complex connections
between law, politics, economics, religion and culture. These events
will set the course for 2017, even as new actors seek to take manage
people, events, states, enterprises and other institutions with
substantial consequential effects of the mass. But most of all 2016
evidence both the great power and the fragility of mass participation in
institutions in which they find themselves in a continuous loop of
mutually dependent overlordship.

With no objective in particular, this post provides my summary of the slice of 2016 in which I was embedded through epigrams and aphorisms.

Friday, December 30, 2016

In many ways, the year that is ending has proven to be quite
significant. Mostly, it served as a hard reminder that the carefully
crafted project of legalization and judicialization of the economic,
religious and cultural spheres that were meant to serve as the
foundations of a global order to make global war effectively impossible
has begun to fray. And with the fraying of the
legalization-judicialization project, politics and power have again
emerged as significant factors in the organization of law and governance
systems. It has seen the destabilization of the Middle East and its
consequential destabilization of Europe. It has seen the retreat of a
great power, a perpetually brooding political Colossus trapped in its
own doubts and pretensions, and the flexing of muscles of rising powers
through territorial expansionism and bullying of weaker partners. It has
seen the exercise of mass power in the United States and other places
that surprised elites that had long grown confident of their ability to
manage their people, whether under Marxist Leninist or democratic
principles. It has seen the unmasking of the militarization of the
internal security and police structures of even the most stable and
democratic states, the abandonment of law in battle against drugs and
the emergence of law as a technique of managing corruption. It has seen
the development of governance beyond the state and the determination of
states seeking to substitute itself for the market. It has seen states
us law, norms, markets and culture to drive efforts to perfect "model"
workers, individuals and citizens, which can then serve the state's
perfection of its markets, its centrally planned decision making
structures, or its structures of divine command on earth. The Jewish
people continued to provide fodder for all sorts of activity and were
used by left, right and themselves to their quite distinct ends, as
other religious institutions sought to maintain or expand their
institutional jurisdiction within legal, cultural, economic and social
structures in and beyond states. The rise of global communities has now
been challenged by states seeking to avoid the implications of normative
communities that cannot be confined to and managed by the state.

2016 is rich with these events that expose the complex connections
between law, politics, economics, religion and culture. These events
will set the course for 2017, even as new actors seek to take manage
people, events, states, enterprises and other institutions with
substantial consequential effects of the mass. But most of all 2016
evidence both the great power and the fragility of mass participation in
institutions in which they find themselves in a continuous loop of
mutually dependent overlordship.

With no objective in particular, this post provides my summary of the slice of 2016 in which I was embedded through epigrams and aphorisms.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

In many ways, the year that is ending has proven to be quite
significant. Mostly, it served as a hard reminder that the carefully
crafted project of legalization and judicialization of the economic,
religious and cultural spheres that were meant to serve as the
foundations of a global order to make global war effectively impossible
has begun to fray. And with the fraying of the
legalization-judicialization project, politics and power have again
emerged as significant factors in the organization of law and governance
systems. It has seen the destabilization of the Middle East and its
consequential destabilization of Europe. It has seen the retreat of a
great power, a perpetually brooding political Colossus trapped in its
own doubts and pretensions, and the flexing of muscles of rising powers
through territorial expansionism and bullying of weaker partners. It has
seen the exercise of mass power in the United States and other places
that surprised elites that had long grown confident of their ability to
manage their people, whether under Marxist Leninist or democratic
principles. It has seen the unmasking of the militarization of the
internal security and police structures of even the most stable and
democratic states, the abandonment of law in battle against drugs and
the emergence of law as a technique of managing corruption. It has seen
the development of governance beyond the state and the determination of
states seeking to substitute itself for the market. It has seen states
us law, norms, markets and culture to drive efforts to perfect "model"
workers, individuals and citizens, which can then serve the state's
perfection of its markets, its centrally planned decision making
structures, or its structures of divine command on earth. The Jewish
people continued to provide fodder for all sorts of activity and were
used by left, right and themselves to their quite distinct ends, as
other religious institutions sought to maintain or expand their
institutional jurisdiction within legal, cultural, economic and social
structures in and beyond states. The rise of global communities has now
been challenged by states seeking to avoid the implications of normative
communities that cannot be confined to and managed by the state.

2016 is rich with these events that expose the complex connections
between law, politics, economics, religion and culture. These events
will set the course for 2017, even as new actors seek to take manage
people, events, states, enterprises and other institutions with
substantial consequential effects of the mass. But most of all 2016
evidence both the great power and the fragility of mass participation in
institutions in which they find themselves in a continuous loop of
mutually dependent overlordship.

With no objective in particular, this post provides my summary of the slice of 2016 in which I was embedded through epigrams and aphorisms.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

In many ways, the year that is ending has proven to be quite significant. Mostly, it served as a hard reminder that the carefully crafted project of legalization and judicialization of the economic, religious and cultural spheres that were meant to serve as the foundations of a global order to make global war effectively impossible has begun to fray. And with the fraying of the legalization-judicialization project, politics and power have again emerged as significant factors in the organization of law and governance systems. It has seen the destabilization of the Middle East and its consequential destabilization of Europe. It has seen the retreat of a great power, a perpetually brooding political Colossus trapped in its own doubts and pretensions, and the flexing of muscles of rising powers through territorial expansionism and bullying of weaker partners. It has seen the exercise of mass power in the United States and other places that surprised elites that had long grown confident of their ability to manage their people, whether under Marxist Leninist or democratic principles. It has seen the unmasking of the militarization of the internal security and police structures of even the most stable and democratic states, the abandonment of law in battle against drugs and the emergence of law as a technique of managing corruption. It has seen the development of governance beyond the state and the determination of states seeking to substitute itself for the market. It has seen states us law, norms, markets and culture to drive efforts to perfect "model" workers, individuals and citizens, which can then serve the state's perfection of its markets, its centrally planned decision making structures, or its structures of divine command on earth. The Jewish people continued to provide fodder for all sorts of activity and were used by left, right and themselves to their quite distinct ends, as other religious institutions sought to maintain or expand their institutional jurisdiction within legal, cultural, economic and social structures in and beyond states. The rise of global communities has now been challenged by states seeking to avoid the implications of normative communities that cannot be confined to and managed by the state.

2016 is rich with these events that expose the complex connections between law, politics, economics, religion and culture. These events will set the course for 2017, even as new actors seek to take manage people, events, states, enterprises and other institutions with substantial consequential effects of the mass. But most of all 2016 evidence both the great power and the fragility of mass participation in institutions in which they find themselves in a continuous loop of mutually dependent overlordship.

With no objective in particular, this post provides my summary of the slice of 2016 in which I was embedded through epigrams and aphorisms.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

In many ways, the year that is ending has proven to be quite significant. Mostly, it served as a hard reminder that the carefully crafted project of legalization and judicialization of the economic, religious and cultural spheres that were meant to serve as the foundations of a global order to make global war effectively impossible has begun to fray. And with the fraying of the legalization-judicialization project, politics and power have again emerged as significant factors in the organization of law and governance systems. It has seen the destabilization of the Middle East and its consequential destabilization of Europe. It has seen the retreat of a great power, a perpetually brooding political Colossus trapped in its own doubts and pretensions, and the flexing of muscles of rising powers through territorial expansionism and bullying of weaker partners. It has seen the exercise of mass power in the United States and other places that surprised elites that had long grown confident of their ability to manage their people, whether under Marxist Leninist or democratic principles. It has seen the unmasking of the militarization of the internal security and police structures of even the most stable and democratic states, the abandonment of law in battle against drugs and the emergence of law as a technique of managing corruption. It has seen the development of governance beyond the state and the determination of states seeking to substitute itself for the market. It has seen states us law, norms, markets and culture to drive efforts to perfect "model" workers, individuals and citizens, which can then serve the state's perfection of its markets, its centrally planned decision making structures, or its structures of divine command on earth. The Jewish people continued to provide fodder for all sorts of activity and were used by left, right and themselves to their quite distinct ends, as other religious institutions sought to maintain or expand their institutional jurisdiction within legal, cultural, economic and social structures in and beyond states. The rise of global communities has now been challenged by states seeking to avoid the implications of normative communities that cannot be confined to and managed by the state.

2016 is rich with these events that expose the complex connections between law, politics, economics, religion and culture. These events will set the course for 2017, even as new actors seek to take manage people, events, states, enterprises and other institutions with substantial consequential effects of the mass. But most of all 2016 evidence both the great power and the fragility of mass participation in institutions in which they find themselves in a continuous loop of mutually dependent overlordship.

With no objective in particular, this post provides my summary of the slice of 2016 in which I was embedded through epigrams and aphorisms.

Monday, December 26, 2016

In many ways, the year that is ending has proven to be quite significant. Mostly, it served as a hard reminder that the carefully crafted project of legalization and judicialization of the economic, religious and cultural spheres that were meant to serve as the foundations of a global order to make global war effectively impossible has begun to fray. And with the fraying of the legalization-judicialization project, politics and power have again emerged as significant factors in the organization of law and governance systems. It has seen the destabilization of the Middle East and its consequential destabilization of Europe. It has seen the retreat of a great power, a perpetually brooding political Colossus trapped in its own doubts and pretensions, and the flexing of muscles of rising powers through territorial expansionism and bullying of weaker partners. It has seen the exercise of mass power in the United States and other places that surprised elites that had long grown confident of their ability to manage their people, whether under Marxist Leninist or democratic principles. It has seen the unmasking of the militarization of the internal security and police structures of even the most stable and democratic states, the abandonment of law in battle against drugs and the emergence of law as a technique of managing corruption. It has seen the development of governance beyond the state and the determination of states seeking to substitute itself for the market. It has seen states us law, norms, markets and culture to drive efforts to perfect "model" workers, individuals and citizens, which can then serve the state's perfection of its markets, its centrally planned decision making structures, or its structures of divine command on earth. The Jewish people continued to provide fodder for all sorts of activity and were used by left, right and themselves to their quite distinct ends, as other religious institutions sought to maintain or expand their institutional jurisdiction within legal, cultural, economic and social structures in and beyond states. The rise of global communities has now been challenged by states seeking to avoid the implications of normative communities that cannot be confined to and managed by the state.

2016 is rich with these events that expose the complex connections between law, politics, economics, religion and culture. These events will set the course for 2017, even as new actors seek to take manage people, events, states, enterprises and other institutions with substantial consequential effects of the mass. But most of all 2016 evidence both the great power and the fragility of mass participation in institutions in which they find themselves in a continuous loop of mutually dependent overlordship.

With no objective in particular, this post and a number that follow provides my summary of the slice of 2016 in which I was embedded through epigrams and aphorisms.

Thursday, December 22, 2016

As the sun sets on eight years of an Obama administration, the United States of America, long quite remote as an institutional body from the global projects for the management of business activities with human rights effects, has now produced a National Action Plan on Responsible Business Conduct (US-NAP).

National Action Plans (NAPs) are policy documents in which a State articulates priorities and actions that it will adopt to support the implementation of international, regional, or national obligations and commitments with regard to a given policy area or topic. Reliance on NAPs as a policy approach and governance tool is not limited to the area of business and human rights. On the contrary, calls for NAPs based on the UNGPs follow from their increasing use in a range of other policy areas. (Danish Institute for Human Rights and International Corporate Accountability Roundtable Toolkit for the Development, Implementation and Review of State Commitments to Business and Human Rights Frameworks (June 2014), pp.8, ¶ 2.1)

To help, the Working Group has produced "guidance" on the development of a national action plan. The Guidance was launched on 1 December 2014 at the Third Annual United Nations Forum on Business and Human Rights, held in Geneva 1-3 December 2014. The Guidance was produced following an open, global, year-long consultative process that involved States, companies, civil society, NHRIs and academia. As part of the Working Group's roadmap to produce the Guidance, it published its 2014 report to the 69th session of the UN General Assembly on national action plans. It also consulted with governments on this topic via a 2014 State survey, and it launched an online consultation (Word | PDF) on substantive elements to be included in a national action plan. (UN Working Group, State National Action Plans)

It is loosely against these objectives and methodologies, especially the Toolkit's National Baseline Assessment (NBA) (Toolkit ¶ 4.2 et seq. and Annex 4) that one ought to assess the US NAP. That assessment follows. The U.S.-NAP exhibits all of the weaknesses and missed opportunities that has marked the NAP process for many developed states: it focuses on outward conduct and pays little attention to the human rights effects of economic activity within the United States; it is grounded in the prerogatives of executive command; it provides little assessment of the legal and remedial framework of the United States and its relationship to managing business conduct; and most regrettably, so focused on the present it fails to present a coherent vision, grounded in law and policy, for moving forward. And yet there is a basis for moving forward revealed in the U.S.-NAP, one that might appeal to the incoming American administration--by focusing on disclosure, transparency and information sharing. The U.S.-NAP is at its most powerful and potentially useful not as a direct manifestation of state power through law, but by embracing methods of regulatory governance that enhance the use of market levers to manage
preferred behaviors.

We need your help. We were hacked and have to rebuild the site from scratch. Funds will go to rebuilding, to our annual 2017 operation expenses, technical needs, and editorial/translation services.

Most importantly, your contribution will go to compensate authors, beginning with those on the island, so that we can stay relevant and fulfill our pledge to serve as a space for dialogue and the dissemination of knowledge.

Happy Holidays & Thank You for Your Continued Support!

I have been a contributor to this marvelous site (here and here). It provides a great resource for Cuba scholarship and an excellent venue for hearing the voices of Cuban scholars and intellectuals. I hope you will consider supporting the efforts to rebuild. More information follows.

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

By now the death of Fidel Castro Ruz will have become to recede as yesterday's news, especially for a world already overwhelmed with greater current catastrophes and crises. Yet that event, long anticipated, ought not to be understood as a small node in time, the effects of which will recede along with public interest. Though his physical body has ceased to function, Castro's life as symbol, as representation--of good, evil, incompetence, passion, ideology, ideas. leader, and the like--will remain powerful in two respects. First, he will survive as the embodiment of a theory and of resistance to hegemons (whatever the reality of this resistance and however corrupted the actuality on the small Island Republic he controlled) will continue to be developed. Within this complex of ideas are nationalism, a distrust for markets and a suspicion of globalized trade, social and political communities. This will play well among developing states, and those states that find themselves the plantations of either "free markets" powers, or the emerging "markets Marxist" powers. Second, he will survive as the nexus points for a cluster of control techniques and political styles that are also likely to be refined and used again. Within this complex of mechanics biopolitics will assume a greater effectiveness in managing governing units grounded in the needs of mass management, one in which the autonomous state and the autonomous individual merge. And, indeed, the move toward a political theory grounded in the perfectibility of the worker within a perfected state that marks post Castro theorizing in Cuba already points in that direction. For my comments, see HERE.

These are themes touched on by my colleague Jorge Luis Romeu, Ph.D., of Syracuse, who is a research professor with the Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at Syracuse University, and an Emeritus Faculty at SUNY Cortland. He is a former Fulbright Scholar. Romeu, a native of Cuba, came to the United States in 1980 during the Mariel Boatlift. In 1979 he was arrested, interrogated and "released guilty" with a suspended 12-year sentence, for having written and sent abroad several dozen stories about life in the UMAP military labor camps. Romeu wrote a guest column for The Syracuse Newspapers from 1988 to 2005.

His essay that appeared first as "Castro's death creates opening for political, economic evolution in Cuba (Commentary)" in the Syracuse Post Standard (Dec. 2, 2016), follows.

This is the second part of a 2 part consideration of human and contract order in late Imperial China. For Part 1 here: No.170-1. The essay considers an important issue in Chinese law and economic structures--the nature of the personal in contract law and relations. This touches on the notions of interpersonal relations as embedded in or exogenous to formal contract relations. The societal and legal development of this foundation is crucial to the study of Chinese commercial law. He notes that in conventional research, the "human" in Chinese traditional contract has been described as the function image of middleman, guarantor or mediator, but little discussion has been given on the internal mechanism and cultural factors of forming this function. If the human problem is restored to the traditional Chinese society, through the human and the parties to form a network of interpersonal relationships, you can see the abstract contractual relationship is actually a concrete relationship.

This Part 2 considers (1) Culture: The mechanism of human being's role in the practice of contract in Ming and Qing Dynasties 文化：中人在明清契约实践中发挥作用的机制; and (2) an Epilogue: Chinese culture and flexible legal orders (六、余论：中国文化所认可的柔性私法秩序).

Every president takes his (or her) own unique path to the White House, but the ascent of President-Elect Donald J. Trump has truly been unlike anything we’ve seen before. Trump has gone from rich kid to real-estate mogul, from bankrupt to “The Celebrity Apprentice,” and from leader of the birther movement to leader of the free world. And with no previous political experience, it’s fair to wonder whether the Oval Office will suit him.

So will President-Elect Donald Trump grab the bull by the “wherever” and fulfill his promise to “make America great again”? Or will we find ourselves worse off and wishing we could say, “You’re fired”? It can be difficult to put politics aside when contemplating such questions, especially so soon after such a contentious election, but our expert panel is up to the task.

In search of more insight into what we can expect from at least the next four years, we asked experts in the fields of economics, finance, public policy and more to answer one simple question: Will Donald Trump be a good president? All in all, twelve experts say no, sixteen vote yes and five are on the fence. You can check out their responses below. And if you’d like to weigh in with a theory of your own, please share your thoughts in the Comments section at the bottom of the page.

The responses were quite enlightening (All Experts). They do a good job of reflecting the current thinking among a group of people whose opinions may be useful for others contemplating this question.

This post includes the full text of my own response and links to the text of all responses. Happy to have interested people weigh in as well.

The Collège des Bernardins in Paris offers a rich intellectual life for those lucky enough be be able to participate. For French speakers, the Collège posts some of its public events. For those interested in the intersectiond of law, theology, globalization, and their management, the lectures and papers presented recently will be of some interest. These were introduced by Father Frédéric Louzeau of the Collège des Bernadins in his "Research Letter" with the deliciously ambiguous title-- Éclairer l’obscur.

The essay considers an important issue in Chinese law and economic structures--the nature of the personal in contract law and relations. This touches on the notions of interpersonal relations as embedded in or exogenous to formal contract relations. The societal and legal development of this foundation is crucial to the study of Chinese commercial law. He notes that in conventional research, the "human" in Chinese traditional contract has
been described as the function image of middleman, guarantor or
mediator, but little discussion has been given on the internal mechanism
and cultural factors of forming this function. If
the human problem is restored to the traditional Chinese society,
through the human and the parties to form a network of interpersonal
relationships, you can see the abstract contractual relationship is
actually a concrete relationship.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

(Eleanor Roosevelt addresses the United Nations on the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; video here)

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To mark that anniversary, in 1950 the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 423 (V) (4 December 1950), inviting all States and interested organizations to observe 10 December of each year as Human Rights Day.

This year, Human Rights Day calls on everyone to stand up for someone's rights! Disrespect for basic human rights continues to be wide-spread in all parts of the globe. Extremist movements subject people to horrific violence. Messages of intolerance and hatred prey on our fears. Humane values are under attack. We must reaffirm our common humanity. Wherever we are, we can make a real difference. In the street, in school, at work, in public transport; in the voting booth, on social media. The time for this is now. “We the peoples” can take a stand for rights. And together, we can take a stand for more humanity. It starts with each of us. Step forward and defend the rights of a refugee or migrant, a person with disabilities, an LGBT person, a woman, a child, indigenous peoples, a minority group, or anyone else at risk of discrimination or violence.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights proclaims: "There is no action that is too small: wherever you are, you can make a difference." (Video of message HERE). The Secretary General reminds us that "Respect for human rights advances well-being for every individual, stability for every society, and harmony for our interconnected world." In his message, the Secretary General stresses the connection between individual human rights and the obligation of individual action:

Upholding human rights is in the interest of all. Respect for human rights advances well-being for every individual, stability for every society, and harmony for our interconnected world. And this work can be done by all, at every level of society. States have the primary responsibility for upholding human rights. The United Nations, along with partners around the globe, must continue to strengthen responses to abuses, and work better to prevent human rights crises. All of us can – and must – act in our daily lives to advance the human rights of the people around us. This is the driving force behind a new global campaign being launched by the UN Human Rights Office -- “Stand Up for Someone’s Rights Today.”"(Message here).

Together, the High Commissioner urges that we are to mark the day by taking a stand for more humanity (id.).

This post considers this theme in the context of the global transformations that have become to emerge from out of the convergences and resistances that now mark globalization.

Launched by the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 2015, the series of Asia FDI Forum provides a multi-stakeholder platform anchored in Hong Kong for participants from academia, government, the private sector and civil society to discuss regional investment trends, highlight specific features of investment treaties and policies, analyze Asia's relationship with other regions of the world, and explore the various legal and policy implications of the emergence of new actors, issues and norms which shape the future of Asia FDI. The Asia FDI Forum 2016 is structured around the emerging three tracks of China's investment policy and strategy.

His Report follows. The Conference Program may be accessed HERE (and portions of which follow the Report); the Background Note may be accessed HERE; a list of Conference Participants may be accessed HERE.

This post considers the constitutional referendum in broader context of the techniques and management of democratic engagement in Western liberal states. It's central focus, however, is to consider briefly the issues the Referendum raises for Italians and within the context of Europe. To that end I include the recent analysis of Fraces D'Emilio that appeared in the popular press and the exceptional analysis of Flora and Alessandro Sapio, to whom I am grateful for their willingness to share.

Our friends at Cuba CounterPoints have been following the two recent events with the greatest potential impacts on U.S.-Cuba relations--the election of Donald Trump and the death of Fidel Castro. The former marks a very concrete possibility real changes going forward; the latter marks a potent symbolic passing of the manifestation of a foundational vision. They have published three interventions that may be of interest, one from Cuba, from the U.S. and one from the "trenches" of the Cuban Diaspora. The three follow below with links to the originals in Cuba Counterpoints. The first, from Cuba, Trump: Reality Show or Real Politik? By Yailenis Mulet Concepción (and translated from the Spanish original by Ariana Hernandez-Reguant) who concludes:

A Cuba without Fidel could evolve gradually toward an economic and political transition. Initially, that transition would unravel under the Development Plan’s guidelines, announced during the 7th Communist Party Congress and intended until 2030. Once Raúl Castro relinquishes the presidency, the process could accelerate. A Trump administration could alter these plans, either with a costly and fruitless reality show (a return to the Cold War and to U.S.-Cuban conflict) or with a real politik of greater positive consequence than that of Obama’s in normalizing relations between the two countries.

My grandmother said it best when my mom told her what had happened. “Me siento extraña,” she said. “I feel strange.” For an entire generation on the island there is no reference point for change. For an entire generation outside the island, there is no reference point for our lives without Fidel, that real and imaginary figure, reshaped in Miami – Enemy #1. No wonder we spin, and spin. The hope is that once we stop spinning, we’ll still be able to find our North Star.

The legacy of Obama might not be completely undone. But it will be redirected, and the pace of change may slow. Fidel’s death makes things easier—he has moved from contemporary to historical presence. But Cuba and the U.S. still speak quite different political languages, and their objectives for Cuba are quite different: well-managed economic contributions for the Cubans, and political transition for the United States. There is a small space where their interests converge. But there are still many people fighting old ghosts on both sides of the Florida Straits, and it is possible that even this small space may be appropriated by those with a substantial interest in preserving the past.

Thursday, December 01, 2016

Protesters gather at an encampment near Cannon Ball, N.D., on Saturday, a day after tribal leaders received a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers saying the federal land would be closed to the public Dec. 5.

The intertwining of environmental responsibilities, human rights, and the relationship of indigenous peoples to the land and their neighbors within the structures of the modern nation state is very much in evidence in the still smoldering confrontation around the Dakota Access Pipeline. That confrontation involves the government of the United States, the project developer, Energy Transfer Partners, and the Standing Rock Sioux, near whose lands the pipeline will pass. Yet in a larger sense, it involves all of us.

The Standing Rock Sioux opposes the pipeline's construction near the Sioux reservation on the grounds that it threatens their public health and welfare, water supply and cultural resources. What began as a small protest camp in April on the Standing Rock reservation has since morphed into an encampment with over 1,000 people. Over the past few months, the Sacred Stone Camp, as it is now called, has been the site of a number of antagonistic face offs between protesters and the oil company (Aaron Sidder, Understanding the Controversy Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, Smithsonian, September 14, 2016).

The confrontation has involved lawsuits, calls by the government for voluntary work stoppage, and sometimes violent clashes between those who would halt the project and the company and its supporters. Only recently, "North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple on Monday ordered a mandatory evacuation of protesters seeking to block construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, but both the state and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said they have no plans for “forcible removal” of the protesters. The Corps of Engineers earlier had said that it planned to close the camp, led by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe of North Dakota, by Dec. 5, and that anyone still there could be prosecuted for trespassing." (see here).

My colleagues, Melissa Tatum, Research Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, and Jennifer Hendry, an Associate Professor in Law and Social Justice at the University of Leeds School of Law, have taken on the issues raised in this context. Their essay, Contested Spaces and Cultural Blinders: Perspectives on the Dakota Access Pipeline, follows.

Search This Blog

Translate

ORCID

ORCHID QR Code

ACI

A Top 100 Blog--Online Schools.org

Follow by Email

PRINTING INDIVIDUAL POSTS

Individual postings may now be more easily printed. To print, FIRST, click on the title of the essay you want to print, THEN scroll down to the "Labels" line near the end of the essay and CLICK on "print this article."

Subscribe To

Cluster Maps

Wikio

Copyright; Citation and Attribution:

All essays are (c) Larry Catá Backer except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved. The essays may be cited and quoted with appropriate reference. Suggested reference as follows: Larry Catá Backer, [Essay Title], Law at the End of the Day, ([Essay Posting Date]) available at [http address].

The author holds a faculty appointment at Pennsylvania State University. Notice is hereby given that irrespective of that appointment, this blog serves as a purely personal enterprise created to serve as an independent site focusing on issues of general concern to the public. The views and opinions expressed here are those of its author. This site is neither affiliated with nor does it in any way state, reflect, or represent the views of Pennsylvania State University or any of its entities, units or affiliates.

Ravitch and Backer's Law and Religion: Cases, Materials, and Readings

3rd Edition 2015

Broekman and Backer, Signs in Law

Springer 2014

BACKERINLAW--PERSONAL WEBSITE

Here you can find my published work, manuscripts, presentations, and more!

Globalization Law and Policy Series from Ashgate Publishing

Globalization: Law and Policy will include an integrated bodyof scholarship that critically addresses key issues and theoretical debates in comparative and transnational law. Volumes in the series will focus on the consequential effects of globalization, including emerging frameworks and processes for the internationalization, legal harmonization, juridification and democratization of law among increasingly connected political, economic, religious, cultural, ethnic and other functionally differentiated governance communities. This series is intended as a resource for scholars, students, policy makers and civil society actors, and will include a balance of theoretical and policy studies in single-authored volumes and collections of original essays.

An interview with the Series EditorQueries and book proposals may be directed to:Larry Catá BackerW. Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholarand Professor of Law, Professor of International AffairsPennsylvania State University239 Lewis Katz BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802email: lcb911@gmail.com

About Me

I hope you enjoy these essays. Each treats aspects of the relationship between law, broadly understood, and human organization. My essays are about government and governance, based on the following assumptions: Humans organize themselves in all sorts of ways. We bind ourselves to organization by all sorts of instruments. Law has been deployed to elaborate differences between economic organizations (principally corporations, partnerships and other entities), political organization (the state, supra-national, international, and non-governmental organizations), religious, ethnic and family organization. I am not convinced that these separations, now sometimes blindly embraced, are particularly useful. This skepticism serves as the foundation of the essays here. My thanks to Arianna Backer for research assistance.